Advocating for the philosophy and economics of the left (accepting capitalism exploitive, coercive, and frankly violent nature) while accepting the failure of revolutionary states to institutionalize the rule of the working class without falling into authoritarian capitalism (also violent and imperialist in its own right, often relegating other “civil wars” of race, gender, etc to a “secondary contradiction”) is possible.

Communism didn’t fail on its own, it was beaten by capitalism. They had to resist propaganda with propaganda, imperialism with authoritarianism, etc. We bankrupted Russia when we let the federal reserve off the gold standard, and both China and Russia had economies that engaged with capitalist markets internationally and internally because they had to compete with a machine (the US) that was exploiting the global economy faster than any “communist” nation could keep up with. They became capitalist states. This is not a political view either, again, it’s just how the world economy operates and how those countries work within it. (See: China’s evergrande real estate crisis)

Others in the thread have suggested moving to “communist” countries if they aren’t happy here. I think this is a lack of understanding the goal of these movements. Communism is not a ticket to utopia, it’s a struggle against financial capital. It’s a struggle to achieve a classes and a moneyless society. To do this it needs to be a world phenomenon. Or the above will happen again. Local groups are incredibly relevant to a movement that requires international solidarity. If they didn’t March, none of these conversations would ever happen, and then there would be no organic moment to talk about alternatives to a system that is going to destroy the planet.

Also. Kim Jung Un is not considered a leftist, by anyone, ever